i often wonder what percentage of people would acknowledge a biological and scientific proof that there are inherent differences in abilities between different races.

we've done the same thing with gender, and some people still think males and females can do everything that the other gender can do equally well. so i don't have much hope.

just because judging people primarily as individuals is a good idea doesn't mean that we can't study differences between groups.

Unfortunately not many.

It should be pretty obvious to people that such differences can exist, but many choose not to take it seriously or simply dismiss it as prejudice. That's just a brain fart on their part.Nothing is prejudice if it's true. So if you can showcase the existence of such a variety you're not being prejudice. Prejudice is to claim things without having logical reasoning to back it up.When for example I say white people are better at enduring low levels of sun exposure I'm not being prejudice, because I back it up with logic and a scienctificly oriented mindset. I would claim fair skin has less protection against sun light and is therefore better at absorbing the sun light it's exposed to. Being exposed to the rays from the sun is critical to us because it provides us with vitamin D, without which we are at risk to a variety of diseases.

In this case I took the example of fair skin's positive attributes in areas with low levels of sun exposure on earth, but I could've choosen to highlight the advantage of having dark skin in areas with high exposure to the sun. Either way it would be equally none prejudice. Whatever criticism directed towards the argument should be dealing with the factual statements, because that's the way you discuss scientific matters.If a scientist disagrees with the studies conducted by another scientist he doesn't get all personal and say something on the lines of "Your face is ugly!" or "Racist pig!", that just reflects badly on himself and makes him look like the idiot (which he would be if he said that)

The same thought process should be used when for example discussing differences in IQ between races. The argument should be about how much of our intelligence is due to our environment and how much is genes, because that's the only way to even remotely explain the measured difference in IQ between races. The wrong way to conduct the argument would be to blame one part for bringing this statitsic up or denying it's existence or just jump staright to the a la natty claim "You're racist!". I'm glad he's gone btw. It's no secret we didn't get along, my problem with him is that he had no integrity. He never hesitated to use cheap tactics to smear others, morphed his opinions just to win an argument and then refused to acknowledge that it changed at all.

[personal comment deleted.......]

*Side note*According to the stupid definition of the word "racist", any and all claims of difference between races is considered racist. So you can't even state obvious truths like black people are better at enduring high exposure to the sun, without being racist. That's why I consider to word hollow and pointless.

I was just going to cut and comment on your IQ section, but realized that would change what you said.

The problem is not just how much is environmental and how much is biological. A far bigger problem is what constitutes IQ and whether it is an actual indicator of anything .. or whether IQ is really measuring the attribute we think is important (ability to aquire new information readily).

IQ has historically had a couple very well known bias. One is the example of asking inner city kids to match a cup with either a spoon , a saucer or some other implement. Inner city kids did not see saucers, so tended to say spoons and not saucers. That's a dated example anyway, since mugs are more the standard now, but it illustrates the point.

Another bias is when men create the tests and just innately consider "male" type thinking to be superior. This is far more subtle and complicated. It has been well studied. The impact is changing because girls and boys now have more equal education than they did in the past, but at the highest assessement levels there is apparently still a bias that has to do with those tests heavily targeting a kind of specific linear thinking.

BUT, you bring up a very good point. If you look hard, you can find that just about everyone is in some way racist or sexist or otherwise prejudiced. Most of us could do with such introspection, just to improve our own thinking. However, whe someone else takes it upon themselves, then we have to be much more careful.

For my part, I am not sure that doing away with racism/sexism, etc is really the goal we should achieve. Rather, I think the goal should be to make such things just realtively unimportant in daily living. When you get to the point that gender and race are no more of a bias than judging someone by their accent, style of dress, etc.. we have come a long way.

There is, of course, such a thing as having too much uniformity. It is good to recognize that we can be repulsed by ideas, yet also recognize that just having people who think in particular ways (not unchallenged, but present) is of value. The extremes help define the middle.

In fact, that is one big change we have seen in the past decade. People get so much more information off the internet now that they talk far more to people who think like them.. and far more rarely wind up changing thinking, unless they are of the sort to go out of their way to challenge.

I don't know how far the science of measuring IQ has advanced.I once had a long talk with a guy whose job was to devise IQ tests for people of different backgrounds, precisely because of stuff like the spoon/saucer thing you mentioned.It seemed to me that if you have to devise a different test (and I can absolutely see why you should: one IQ test that I took included an odd-one-out test which involved knowing gods were Greek and which Roman, for example), then it's hard to compare results.

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

As I probably said before, I think differences that are perceived as racial differences are not racial differences at all, but rather economic differences.

Player brings up the saucer, cup, spoon example. If you provided that question to a poor white kid and a poor black kid, they would probably both get the answer wrong. The color of someone's skin has nothing to do with why they do or do not use a saucer. I know that the "economic differences" thing doesn't apply in all contexts, but it is a much better explanation than skin color.

I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

AoG, post that one of the dude smiling again on that last post, pretty please. I don't remember where the last one was and I wanna crack up again.

I had a job in high school where part of my duties were I had to handle many many tasks at once and I sucked at it. The women in the place, young and old, veteran or new, didn't seem to have a hard time with it at all.Coincidence? (Insert joke about me being too dumb to multitask here)

Last edited by Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

AoG, post that one of the dude smiling again on that last post, pretty please. I don't remember where the last one was and I wanna crack up again.

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

inb4 "blacks aren't better athletes"

Well Aog has a point here. Why is it all the marathon runners in the Olympics seem to be from the horn of africa?

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

inb4 "blacks aren't better athletes"

Well Aog has a point here. Why is it all the marathon runners in the Olympics seem to be from the horn of africa?

Certain African gene pools have been selected, naturally or unnaturally, for specific characteristics over the course of history. Being "Black" has nothing to do with it. It could just as soon been another race but situation/location has made is so that it just happened to be black people for the examples being used. There are plenty of skinny, weak black people. Ever seen the show "good times"? I don't think JJ would ever have been recruited by the New York Jets, no matter how much time he spent in the gym.

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

inb4 "blacks aren't better athletes"

Well Aog has a point here. Why is it all the marathon runners in the Olympics seem to be from the horn of africa?

I don't think AoG has a point. If black people were better athletes because of the color of their skin, wouldn't all athletes be black? Is Tiger a good golfer because he's black?

Army of GOD wrote:I wouldn't doubt if a difference in IQ exists similar to how tall people generally have a higher IQ than short people. Yea, economic differences have an impact too I bet, but it'd be naive in my opinion if you said straight up that biology has nothing to do with it.

Like, black people have larger muscles than whites. Is that based on economic differences as well?

Black people have larger muscles than white people? All of them?

On average, I'd guess. What else accounts for the fact that blacks are better athletes?

inb4 "blacks aren't better athletes"

Well Aog has a point here. Why is it all the marathon runners in the Olympics seem to be from the horn of africa?

I don't think AoG has a point. If black people were better athletes because of the color of their skin, wouldn't all athletes be black? Is Tiger a good golfer because he's black?

Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

oh, and I know my opinion is hardly based on scientific evidence so I would gladly alter my opinion if some evidence otherwise was presented. I'm just saying as of right now with a mostly unbiased viewpoint, that's what I think if someone put a gun to my head.

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.

I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running. It's the only sport that is basically the same across all cultures, climates, socio-economic situations, etc. You don't need a big ass field of green grass to run. You don't need equipment. You don't need anything. You just go out there and run.

What physical characteristic would you say exists among the majority of successful runners globally?